The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the road at way/70947577#map=15/54.17595/-1.81546&layers=H

The ridiculously large bounding box is because the TPEP is drawn as one way: way/94759467 . Actual edit was along the trail at relation/3878675#map=13/54.17067/-1.78562&layers=H .

Unfortunately, we can't use Google Streetview for licensing reasons (see osm.wiki/Google ), and any data added as a result of that will need to be reverted and redacted. Was that the source that you used for the change here?

That's a (hopefully short term) problem with overpass: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/overpass-turbo-link-shortening-kaput/135306 .

The query will have looked something like:
[date:"2025-09-05T00:00:00Z"];
relation(2267444);
out geom;

Hello,
What was the source of the change here? The "imagery used" on the changeset was Bing Maps Aerial; were you able to use that as a source?
Best Regards,
Andy

One thing that would be really helpful would be if you could also encourage the capture of "wheelchair:description" too (it's easy to miss things like "main entrance has two steps, but there is step-free access via the car park")

> Where else does it say which tags and keys are used?

Taginfo

> Which data consumer could you contact if a tag is used once worldwide? ;-)

The ones listed at taginfo :)

Yes, in this case usage has been largely historic and going down because people have been updating old nodes, but in the general case the wiki is designed to describe tag use not direct it.

Thanks - I've already changed it in line with what I saw, but was just wondering what the original source was? Was there perhaps a side entrance without a step that I had missed?

(for the benefit of anyone looking at edits by this Facebook mapper):
There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, way/1355696177 has added "surface=paving_stones" with "source=Bing", but a glance at the Bing imagery in iD shows that the alleged pavement surface is entirely obscured by a large building, so clearly that imagery is not the source of that tag.

In order to help tidy some of this stuff up, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUO is a query for nodes and ways last edited by @VLD292 in Northern England, and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2aUP is the Southeast. There's some "unclear sourcing" at the very least in there - for example, way/1355696177 has added "surface=paving_stones" with "source=Bing", but a glance at the Bing imagery in iD shows that the alleged pavement surface is entirely obscured by a large building.
For those reasons we're reliant on people on the ground to tidy these errors up, but they will be able to look at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=21941706 and see previous problems that were reported and treat anything by VLD292 at Facebook as "in need of remapping".

1) "wiki" is not a source.
2) If you're going to fiddle with values in OSM please try and contact data consumers first.

I've removed the name from relation members (and some outliers) in a series of changes from changeset/171240691 to 171241261.
In a couple of places the added names here didn't match the route that OSM had. See changeset/171241261 and changeset/171241089 for those. Given that the route changes in places to prevent erosion, it'll need a survey to see which is correct currently.
Personally, I tend to add route markers to help reconcile them - see e.g. relation/4092633 for a work-in-progress example of that.

Hello,
Just wondered where the wheelchair tags on node/735945109/history came from?
Best Regards,
Andy

Ah - thanks!

node/13099017794 has no NCN number on it.

However, someone's attempt to remove the signage pointing northeast at node/10863834705 has been only partially successful.

Hello,
What does the changeset comment "approved AI buildings" mean?
Best Regards,
Andy

... and the northwest change I've done in changeset/170994103 .
I've explicitly added that back as "not a path", to stop someone adding it from imagery (where it is still somewhat visible) or GPS traces.

Hello,
I've edited the southeast change in here in changeset/170993268 .
The key changes were:
1) ensure that the actual OSM ways (with e.g. sac_scale) were restored, so that everyone can see that they are not "regular paths".
2) ensure that they were NOT tagged "highway=path", so they won't appear on regular maps and apps.
The iffy ascent through the "ford" I've changed to "highway=scramble" - that shouldn't appear on any regular "walk in a park" apps any time soon. If even that's still wrong, let me know and we can change it again.
The other one way/1192129593 I've changed to "not:highway=path" since it seems to be a bit of wishful thinking on behalf of someone or their GPS.
Looking at the GPS traces osm.org/#map=20/56.6577074/-4.9896357&layers=HG is helpful - they're all over the place, and most people making this "ascent" do so to the west of where the previous "path" was in OSM.
Best Regards,
Andy (from the DWG)

It is possible to revert a whole changeset, but it might be easier just to remove the names where they've been added. I'll have a go at doing that. That way, the 626 node changes won't get backed out too.
Best Regards,
Andy